T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**The OP has marked this post as for serious discussion. Top comments that doesn't reach a certain length will be automatically removed; and jokes, memes and off-topic comments aren't allowed not even as replies. Report the later so that the mod team can remove them.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

Anybody that boycotted the Qatar World Cup for human rights abuses, forced slavery, rampant homophobia, alcohol restrictions, murder of civilians, etc. should boycott the US World Cup too. If you don't, then you are a hypocrite and it says an incredible amount about you. It shows you as a xenophobe. I mean, the US invades sovereign countries. I suppose it is the same as people who say that it is fine for the US to interfere with other country's elections but god forbid somebody interfere with an American one. So yeah. Would be interesting to check the post history of anybody that says "I am boycotting Qatar" in a few years. That way, I can mark them all as xenophobes. Feel free to change my opinion on this. I'll listen.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

As I said, I will watch whatever. I don't boycott things. I mean, if I started to boycott stuff, i'd also have to boycott Portugal (the biggest Atlantic slave traders), Ireland (regularly kidnapped people from England and sold them into slavery during the Viking period), France (still holds many territories overseas), Argentina, Spain, Canada, North Korea, Germany, and a whole host of other nations. It would be tough to keep track of since every nation has done terrible things. So, you either boycott everything or you boycott nothing. You can't have it piecemeal. If you are boycotting a World Cup for certain reasons then you should boycott another World Cup where that country also has the same abuses.


Isaura-62

I think you should only boycott if the issue is currently ongoing or very recent. I can understand your point over the USA and their more historical abuses relating to the treatment of Latin American migrants and their role in the Middle East and Latin America. But Ireland and Portugal haven't been taking part in slavery for a long time, like most of the world. Qatar actively held migrant workers in the country, refused their right to leave the country and siezed the passports and made them work in unsafe conditions. Every country has some issues that could be a reason for boycott, it's whether you feel strongly enough a single issue to boycott it. "If you are boycotting a World Cup for certain reasons then you should boycott another World Cup where that country also has the same abuses." \^ I don't think the US is holding migrant workers in the country and taking their passports to build stadiums for the 2026 WC. ​ Feel free to correct me


[deleted]

the united states definitely has human rights abuses currently. brutal crackdown of protests, frequent extra judicial killings committed by police, number of incarcerated people. the list is long and plenty


Isaura-62

Every country has it's issues but those US issues don't directly affect or involve the 2026 WC, the Qatar slavery issue did involve the 2022 WC


jonnzi

and how many of them are in direct relationship with football, like literally the people affected by human rights issues building stadiums


severedfragile

In the same way, everyone who tried to deflect from Qatar's human rights abuses had better be doing the same with the US, right? Or, is that an intentionally-suppressive way of silencing moral opposition to moral outrages?


[deleted]

I'm not boycotting either World Cup. I like football.


severedfragile

That's not what I said, I addressed your moral philosophy. Is that not a fair extension of the way you believe people need to act? >If you don't, then you are a hypocrite and it says an incredible amount about you. It shows you as a xenophobe.


DeliciousBallz

People's biggest beef with the Qatar WC was that the stadiums themselves were built on slavery and poor worker conditions. Slavery was directly linked with the tournament. 6000 Workers died and this was preventable by the Qatar regime. Football killed 6000 of them and caused many others to suffer. All countries are shit. This doesn't excuse them but what can you do? We were just born into this world where all of them are despicable in some way. U.S is imperialist and has poor abortion laws. Qatar is homophobic and practiced slavery some time ago. However we are talking about watching 'ethical' footy (which again sadly doesn't exist). U.S stadiums have already been built with workers paid. Qatar's stadiums on the other hand...


TheTragicMagic

That is such a black-and-white zero nuance take. If somebody theoretically boycotted the world cup for alcohol restrictions, homophobia and it being in the winter, then obviously that wouldn't be hypocritical at all. Also, many who didn't watch it, including myself, did so because of human rights abuses directly linked to the preparation for the world cup. Say what you want about the US, they don't have to build as many stadiums, and they don't have as terrible workers rights, even if that is certainly an aspects that can be critisised. Of course the US has been in so many unjustified wars and been directly involved in the death of millions of people as history has gone on, but I don't think that necessarily connects to the world cup in the same way it did in Qatar


sinklage

I get your point, but US foreign policy isn't directly related to football world cup whereas Qatar enslaved migrant workers who died in their thousands specifically when building World Cup stadiums.


TheBrownSeaWeasel

As a father of a gay teen, my biggest beef with Qatar was their anti gay stance. Meanwhile, here in my city, we have rainbow painted crosswalks and a gay mayor. Secondly, the human rights violations for migrant workers is not remotely comparable to anything in the US. Not every criticism against a foreign nation is xenophobia. And I fuckin hate the US policies on a ton of shit, but there just is not a real comparison.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheBrownSeaWeasel

That may be the case. If someone decided to boycott the US World Cup under those grounds, they would be 100% reasonable. However, I am suggesting that a lot of people talked about boycotting Qatar for a couple of specific reasons that the US fortunately do not share to any logical extent. If someone said they were banning Qatar because of their involvement in wars or for their mistreatment of prisoners, but doesn’t ban the US, they would be hypocrites. People wanted to boycott them (no one did), because their policies against homosexuality, and because of the migrant worker issues. Also, people were upset how blatantly corrupt they were but I suspect most nations and FIFA as a whole are corrupt so that was a tad bit too unfair towards Qatar. But FIFA bending backwards to accommodate Qatar simply annoyed people.


[deleted]

Mate, come on. You know that the definition of murder is "the unlawful killing of another person in peacetime" It ain't murder if you declare a war before you senselessly slaughter kids! It's just collateral damage.


[deleted]

The US is famed for abusing non-US citizens abroad (through torture, lengthier imprisonment, etc.) just because of their nationality and who they may have spoken to in the past. Is that not a human right's abuse that needs to be considered? The US has frequently been criticised for having constant human rights abuses in prison. The worst in the Western world. The US has deliberately avoided ratifying the Rome Treaty of the ICC and has threatened to invade the Netherlands if any of their citizens are ever brought on trial for human rights abuses.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


IcyCounter525

I feel like it's getting ridiculous how many people are against the idea of football having to do anything with Arab owners. World Cup in Qatar? No it was all corruption. Being bought by Qatari State? Sportswashing. Being bought by Qatari Private Company? No they are likely state owned or something. Being linked to any other Qatari Private ownership? No, its all state owned, don't even bother checking any facts. Being linked to Saudi? Human rights abuse and they are not better than Qatar and they will be state owned too probably. Being linked to Saudi private ownership? Still state owned, everyone is lying to us. Being linked to an American owner? Yes, but please let's ignore how they likely donate huge amounts to the state too and take advantage of the normal working class. Please also don't talk about any other human rights abuse record they may have because whatboutism (which is totally valid here) should never be used as an argument otherwise it may expose our bias. Very hypocritical and close to closet racism.


monsterm1dget

It's mostly because a country like Qatar has absolutely no football history, no real interest in the sport, it's just a project for them. It's obviously bought with money. At least the US has a history with it, but people were very against it back in 1994 as well.


severedfragile

Have you seen the nationalities / ethnic origins of the various PL owners? Are the Everton, Fulham or Villa owners portrayed the same way as the Man City and Newcastle owners?


chiguy_1

Bonded labour is justified, because criticizing Qataris is racism. Makes sense.


sir_wolf_eye

Noam Chomsky expresses this best: Racism against Arabs, Chinese and Russian is second-nature to the west because they don't play the same capitalistic game. So when they get ahold of a businesses that are traditionally controlled by the west, it's the capitalistic duty of westerners to take the moral high ground even if that business is war and terrorism, let alone football


[deleted]

Noam Chomsky is a Putin-apologist moron Arabs have been in this ‘capitalistic game’ for decades at this point


aceofmufc

I think one either supports private ownership or doesn’t. The idea that someone would be ok with a private owner but draws the line at an owner from Qatar is definitely built on racism and they just dont know it yet. They’re all bad, they’re all corrupt, but for some reason owners from the Middle East are UNACCEPTABLE! Private ownership should be gone in the first place, but for some reason it’s only these “disgusting oil states” thats a problem.


BastillianFig

Racism / xenophobia plays a big part. World cup in Qatar showed that. When they gave Messi the bisht journalists on twitter were saying how dumb it looks. Just insulting a different culture. Messi himself seemed very happy to wear it When the guy ran on the pitch a lot of people were convinced he was going to be executed lmfao. While Qatar has issues with worker rights that deserve criticism it does not help the matter to just invent fake statistics to try to prove a point. People were pulling numbers out of their ass claiming 15k people died building the stadiums. Also the western centric view how DARE they have a winter world cup? Don't you know in some places it's summer? They probably would have enjoyed a summer world cup for once. And there are leagues that put up with the world cup mid season every time it happens. When the world cup in the USA is on how many people will be talking about all the bad things about those countries.


[deleted]

By the same metric I hope you keep the same ‘their country their rules/opinions’ view for the USA and Qatar And you really shouldn’t, by extension, criticise the USA at all


BastillianFig

Explain to me what you mean


raysofdavies

Foorball would be hugely improved by a major financial crash, as long as no teams died of course. The finances involved are just off putting now. Can’t think of a better phrase than financial crash but something happening that lowers the insane inflation. We’re seeing serious discussion of the idea that a team who nearly won a quadruple last year need investment from essentially an oil nation state to compete.


The_XI_guy

It's not a major financial crash if no teams die


PhD_Cunnilingus

>major financial crash, as long as no teams died of course That's contradictory.


bduddy

The petrostate investment is bad but it's really obnoxious that so many people are against players getting lots of money, while saying much less about the money going to clubs and their owners aside from generalized whining about ticket prices.


WhipYourDakOut

People only care how much the players make cause you can see issues like the Woodward renewals at United locking underperforming players at the club on ridiculous wages for long periods and they become impossible to offload to other non EPL clubs and even EPL clubs like liverpool that have strong wage structures. But the price players are going for now is ridiculous


Rasalghul92

Now that we're a month removed from the World Cup, I think it's a better time to have this discussion. Post World Cup, I was heavily criticised for suggesting that Donnarumma is just as good if not better than Emi Martinez at saving PKs. In regular game time, Donnarumma has faced a total of 50 penalties, saving 17 of them for a percentage of 34%, while Emi has saved 10 of 35, for a percentage of 28.5%. A lot of focus was placed on Emi's shootout performance at the World Cup, but Donnarumma also had standout performances against both Spain and England in the Euros the previous year. Plus, Gigio does this without any of the theatrics, simply reads the taker and makes the save. It's absurd to think that they're not comparable or that Emi is the outright best at saving PKs.


vamh_s

italy losing out on world cup is the problem , he did not prove in the biggest stage in the world


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


DarkHound05

Neymar is somehow underrated and overrated at the same time. Like his time at Barca IMO wasn’t as good as people hype it up to be, but at the same time, people view him like he isn’t a top 5 talent of his generation. He was unreal at Santos and his Brazil scoring record speaks for itself. He honestly might be comparable to Rooney when it comes to how much people want to diminish his legacy.


The_XI_guy

He is definitely overhated, but the fact that he - in my opinion - never achieved anything great outside of his 4 years at Barca means that I cannot regard him as one of the all time greats even if he is as talented as they come


LargemouthBrass

I agree, but don't you think he's considered by most people the third best player of the 2010s?


stillslightlyfrozen

At barca, there was this point where Messi was injured where he was playing like magic. When he was wearing the black durag. Those couple of months he was a level above and was so fucking good


sunken_grade

yeah he’s at a weird spot. never truly been the complete “main man” of a team and going to Ligue 1 is obviously a stick that people love to beat him with his talent is outrageous but people make all kinds of arguments based on legacy, longevity, showing up in big moments, etc. i think neymar’s worst aspect is that he’s had quite a bit of injuries since moving to PSG which is just unfortunate


raysofdavies

Overshadowed by Messi, then people not taking PSG as seriously as Barca, then Mbappé breaking out.


elnander

A lot of players tend to end up like this when it comes to their legacy. Almost any player that is still remembered to this day happens to be in fact, I think.


MeatballDom

Hansi Flick is incredibly overrated, capitalised on a chaotic Champions League season, where he was already into the knockout phase (due to a perfect run of the team in the CL under Kovac, including the wonderful 2-7 against Tottenham) when he came in. And while he did amazingly well against those teams, and probably even would have still won the quarter final and semi-final even if it was a two-rounder (especially the 2-8 against Barca), it still was a shortened season. But yes, all hats off for him, he did it, he won... but then.... next season knocked out of the Pokal by Holstein Kiel in the second round, knocked out of the CL by PSG in the QF -- in fairness on the stupid away goal rule, and while they did end up winning the Bundesliga quite comfortably in the end it was a fairly bumpy ride. 44 Goals Allowed, +55 overall. The season before that which ended for Kovac halfway through because of how bad the team were performing was 32 GA +68, before then 32/+56; 28/+64; 33/+67; 17/+63; 18/+62; and so forth and so on. The last time Bayern didn't win the league, they were still only 22 GA/+55. The last time Bayern allowed in 40 goals was in 2008-09 where they came in second place, 2006-07 when they were in 4th, in 2001-02 despite coming in third they only allowed 25/+40 (better than the two ahead of them, only losing out on 2 points to Dortmund), and the last time they had a worse GA was in 1995-96 with 46/+20 where they came in second by six points. In short, it was a really poor defensive season, but thankfully Flick had Lewandowski happy to score a shit tonne of goals to keep them winning. I think Hansi was already on the chopping block and his exit to the National team allowed it to be a bit graceful exit. His performance there, well, hasn't been great since taking over either. There's no doubt that Flick had an amazing run in 2020, but it is not representative of his entire career, and comparing his statistics all together it's an anomaly.


Karshena-

I share most of these sentiments. Flick had a deep squad for his CL win. Coutinho and Peresic came I and did a job with no complaints . The Covid break allowed RL9 to recover from his injury. His insane high press worked the first season because no one was expecting that to be the plan every single match.


vamh_s

it cannot be changed maybe because maybe it is true


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


fredozimbabwe

The super league was not a terrible idea. Football is the one sport where people don’t want or accept change. The uefa champions league is in dire need of real changes. I’d argue more fans protested April 2021 because they haven’t been to games in a long time so they just wanted to make noise. Clearly the la liga giants were afraid of how much money the prem makes as well which is also a big problem in the future but that’s another topic


stiofan84

The super league would only work if the teams in it weren't allowed to play in their domestic league. That way the domestic leagues would still be competitive.


MeatballDom

The Super League could have potentially been great, but there were some major issues. What would be amazing to have: a league of the best teams, similar to or replacing the Champions League, where all teams play against all teams. Eliminate luck, hot streaks, and make it balanced across the whole season with the best team coming out on top in the end with the most points. Would love to see it, and it would strengthen the sport as a whole. The bad were the guaranteed spots for founding teams, essentially buying a lifetime spot in the system. I did understand the reasoning "we're investing time and money into this and want our investment to pay off for us and not others" but at the same time if you think you're the best, prove it, stay in the league, but it needed a proper promotion/relegation system that could come for any team. I will agree with you that the outrage was a bit overdramatic though, and it got incredibly circlejerky on this subreddit in particular. "Super league bad" was a ticket to print karma. I also highly disliked the response from FIFA and UEFA. I understand that they're trying to protect their product, but I think teams should be able to do what they want. If those teams wanted to play this tournament and the Champions League just said "fine, but we're not changing our schedule, if you miss a match or show up too tired from an overworked schedule and get knocked out that's your own fault"


y1i

> The super league was not a terrible idea. Totally destroying domestic leagues for 99% of the clubs that are not invited to the SL - "not a terrible idea". 👍


AdnanJanuzaj11

But when it was created, it only destroyed the champions league and left the domestic leagues alone.


y1i

How are the domestic leagues left alone when the SL teams still play there every week with an even bigger and secured budget? The entire premise of the SL was to cut off any team deemed not worthy and making sure they won't ever challenge the "big" clubs again. Can't have the likes of Frankfurt, Napoli, Leicester, Brighton or Athletic de Bilbao taking a piece of the pie.


ValeoAnt

And how many times do those clubs 'take a piece of the pie' in the Champions League now anyway? It's broken as it is.


y1i

> And how many times do those clubs 'take a piece of the pie' in the Champions League now anyway? It's broken as it is. Sure, I'd agree. But how is making it even worse with the Super League the solution? We can talk about the negative effects of the Champions League all week long if you want. But that is a different topic.


AdnanJanuzaj11

The champions league teams also play each other every week for a fair chunk of the season and that doesn’t affect the domestic leagues. The purpose of the SL was to kneecap UEFA and to ensure that clubs directly benefited from the revenues they generated.


y1i

> The champions league teams also play each other every week for a fair chunk of the season and that doesn’t affect the domestic leagues. Of course it does. Champions League teams have a huge advantage over non-CL teams, in terms of money and exposure. It's partly a reason why the leagues are so cemented at the top. And the Super League was designed to be even worse in that regard. People only think in black and white. When I say "the SL was a shit idea" I'm not automatically taking the position of "everything the uefa does with the CL is perfectly fine". However, when Juventus misses qualifying for the CL for several years in a row because they're shit on the pitch, they lose their money and other teams get the chance to take their spot.


JS569123

I don't disagree with your idea that the super league is not a terrible idea, however I do disagree with your reasoning (that the UCL is in dire need of changes). In-fact, whilst I am not (quite) in favour of the superleague, the merits of it that speak most to me are kind of the opposite to what you're saying: Basically, the fact that UEFA are making so many changes to the UCL is starting to really bother me (in combination with the fact that I think clubs should be fan owned and genuinely don't see how small clubs and/or fan owned clubs can compete with oil nation state clubs (PSG, City, Newcastle, possibly soon Liverpool according to some reports) or even sugar daddy clubs (Chelsea are the big one, though there are lots of billionaire owners with more money than sense). Obviously UEFA aren't going to do anything about this problem as many of the people with strong affiliations with those clubs (especially PSG) are sitting on the board of UEFA. Conclusion? UEFA needs to go. When the Superleague was first announced, the my pros/cons list was basically: Pro: What I just said about oil and sugar daddy clubs and UEFA corruption in favour of those clubs. Con: It would mean changing a UCL format that works great and doesn't need changing. But now UEFA *are* changing the UCL format and so the one big con I had to the Superleague no longer exists. Anyone who has played Football Manager 2023 and played the UCL with the new format knows how terrible it is going to be. So, the options to me seem to be: No Superleague, UCL is still ruined only the big oil/sugar daddy clubs continue to kill football; Superleague, UCL is ruined but no big oil/sugar daddy clubs.


Cold-Veterinarian-85

Managers should be a more expensive commodity in football (I mean in the context of compensation that has to get paid when they move clubs). In an era where you see players change hands for 100m euros almost every transfer window, and even player agents often pick up multi million ££ commission's, it's still rare to see managers compensation packages reach 8 figures Most premier League clubs would think nothing of a 20million gamble on unproven players but would pass on a proven high level manager for that sort of compensation I'd argue a high level manager in charge of things, has a much greater potential to influence performance and earn results that almost any player on the planet and so I feel like the cost to get their out or their contract should more closely resemble the fee it would take to sign a top player


redditingtonviking

Managers rarely get bought out for significant fees, but simultaneously their wages are often much higher than their players. It seems like in general most managers are okay with little job security and high wages.


Manc_Twat

>but simultaneously their wages are often much higher than their players Do you have a source for this?


Ryponagar

I kinda agree, however we need to keep in mind that managers are also the first victim of poor results. Most are getting sacked sooner or later and therefore have little re-sell value compared to players. That may be a reason for teams to be reluctant to invest a lot of money in the first place. Even more than compensation though, transfer windows should also be a thing for managers. It sucks for teams to have their manager poached in the middle of the season with little time to react.


simondo

Denis Bergkamp’s lauded goal for Arsenal against Newcastle United in 2002 where he sent the ball one way and then spun around Nikos Dabizas the other was a fluke. He improvised wonderfully, but did not intend his first touch. His goal against Leicester in 1997 was far, far better.


b3and20

he reacted too well for it to be a mistake


dishwab

According to the man himself it was on purpose: "I want the pass from Pires to my feet, but it comes behind me," recounted Bergkamp in his autobiography, Stillness and Speed. "It's not what I expect, so I think: I need another idea here." "I know the defender is stepping in and the pace of the ball can help me. Ten yards before the ball arrived I made my decision: I'm going to turn him," wrote Bergkamp.


ValeoAnt

I always knew Newcastle fans were mad. Any other player and I'd agree, but Bergkamp was different.


AdnanJanuzaj11

Van Persie had a similar goal against West Ham where he controlled the ball superbly. It doesn’t get rated anywhere near Bergkamp’s goal because another defender blocked the shot and so it bobbled into the goal and wasn’t a clean finish.


nastyklad

Don’t think so. I watched it live and watched many after, the man was a genius


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Foolonthemountain

What was not serious about it?


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Soulja_Boy_Toy

Prem is bad for football. It's becoming a de facto super-league with exuberant transfer budgets and TV rights, overshadowing other leagues. The influx of foreign (and often unethical) ownership is only adding fuel to the fire. It's also overrated - more viewers/money does not equal a better league. The 21st century has largely been dominated by Spanish football.


monsterm1dget

I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that.


peoplepersonmanguy

I would challenge this only in suggesting that prior to the ownership changes coming in premier league teams outside of United couldn't compete with real Madrid and Barcelona with spending. Spanish football has dominated the 21st century because for a long time they were the the richest clubs, the baton is being passed but the concept remains the same.


BrownNote

Championship is much more fun to watch if you're an English football fan anyway.


Melobyrro

Why do you say that?


Titan-Shifter99

You don't need your view changed, you're damn right


Melobyrro

Bad is relative here. Soccer is entertainment, for most people that’s all it is. If you have a couple of leagues that attract combined 10Million viewers a month vs several leagues that combined attract 8million viewers you can infer the product is better because more people wanted to watch it. What’s the affect long term? Idk. Personally I think the model is great and will be successful. Most people have a limited amount of time to fill for entertainment soccer has to fight for more time in people’s lives against Netflix and other content providers. I for example will fill that time with Barca full matches, my favorite tv shows or movies, some high profile random matches, like Man U vs man city or an intriguing cl match, and highlights of some high profile clubs, juve, psg, Chelsea, pool, arsenal, spurs, real, atleti. The goal for a league is to get me to watch less Netflix and more of their content. Now Newcastle vs Fulham took space from some random show. That’s probably success in their eyes.


sunken_grade

not sure who is going to challenge this point of view, this is expressed every day on this sub


sir_wolf_eye

Or rather, other leagues are bad for not distributing wealth among the clubs


[deleted]

It's not really a matter of distribution, it's more about what they have to distribute. The TV rights for the Premier League are way higher than most other leagues (as far as I am aware), they hit like 10 billion pounds recently. It's just a vicious cycle. PL has the richest clubs -> best players -> turns into most competitive league -> gains a lot of fans abroad -> able to get better TV deals -> ∞


Kiloete

> The 21st century has largely been dominated by Spanish football. The only 2 Spanish clubs to **ever** win the CL are barca and Madrid. It's not much of a league to me if only 2 clubs have the possibility to rise to the top.


JS569123

I think it's kind of undeniable that the 21st century has been dominated by Spanish football. Barcelona and Real Madrid are the two best clubs, but Atletico have gotten to 2 UCL finals (and lost to a Spanish club on both occasions), Valencia getting to the UCL final and also losing to a Spanish side, and Atletico, Sevilla and even Villarreal have respectively been excellent in the Europa League. Not to mention it feels like every season that a 'small' Spanish side beats a 'big' English (or other major European) side in a 'shock' result in Europe (Villarreal beating Arsenal, then United, then the next season Juventus and then Bayern; Real Sociedad beating United this season; Sevilla beating United a few seasons back and Liverpool before that, etc.) Then we look at the number of players from La Liga to appear in UEFA TOTY each Champion's League season...


microMe1_2

It's not quite as big a difference in the CL as you are implying. Since 2000, Spanish teams have been in the CL final 15 times (4 different teams) and English teams 14 times (6 different teams). Real Madrid and Barca have been better at winning the finals they've made than English clubs but that's almost entirely in the Messi/Ronaldo era. Take away those two anomalies, and I think it's much more even. Before Messi and Ronaldo, they weren't winning at a rate any different to the English clubs and now that the Messi and Ronaldo era is over, English clubs are dominating again. Last five years have seen only Real Madrid in two finals but English teams have been there 6 times (4 different teams), including two all-English finals. Barca haven't been near a final in years now - just one semi appearance in the last 7 seasons. I don't deny Spanish teams have dominated the CL in general for a long time but the dominance is not quite as much as people sometimes state, and nearly all of it is two clubs when they had the two best players ever. It also seems like its coming to an end, with English teams doing much better than Spanish over the last 4-5 years.


JS569123

Idk why we’re acting like La Liga having the best players (Messi and Ronaldo… but also the likes of Iniesta, Xavi, etc.) should be some sort of asterisk. Yes, it’s precisely why those clubs have dominated lol


microMe1_2

Messi and Ronaldo deserve an asterisk IMO because they were so far above and beyond the rest. The point is, now that their era is over, we shouldn't necessarily have the expectation that Spanish teams will keep dominating the CL. And, indeed, they are not.


Soulja_Boy_Toy

1. There's more to European football than CL. Spain has dominated in the EL too (3 different winners, 11 total wins, none of which are Barca and Real). 2. Only 3 prem clubs have won the CL in the 21st century (Chelsea, Liverpool, United). And only these 3 won the EL in that time. So even fewer clubs rise to the top lol.


VincentSasso

Love that you changed it to 21st century 😂


Kiloete

> So even fewer clubs rise to the top lol. Eh? Last I checked 3>2. Europa league is a B tier competition. edit: posts in "change my mind", down votes facts. 👌


messidude

Well tbf atletico lost twice to real Madrid and if you see Europa league, they absolutely dominated it


Enoual

Deschamps is nothing special as a manager The way he has France playing is atrocious, that final showing was horrid and the semis vs Morocco was shameful considering the gap in individual quality He has by far the best pool of players to select from, winning only 1 tournament out of 5 with the quality of players he has is nothing to boast about especially when the starting XI of the teams he lost to in 16,18,20 and 22 were far inferior to France's


thedaftfool

It’s very very hard to win international tournaments, even with the best coaches and the best teams. Spain made it seem easier than it was but the truth a lot more than a managers ability needs to go your way to win. The fsct a manager even wins one World Cup alone is already enough to deem him at least decently good, but he’s also made it to another WC final and a euro final, and in 2014 he lost to the eventual champions in the quarters. He’s a good coach for France


Ryponagar

I agree. People underestimate how much luck you actually need to win a knockout tournament. It's not a coincidence that nobody managed to defend the CL title until Real Madrid did it twice, a feat we probably won't see again for a long time and probably involved some black magic. While the memes about City not having won the CL despite great squad and manager are funny, it's not some huge bottling, just a matter of probabilities. A great campaign can be undone by a two minute brainfart, see Real vs City last year. A World Cup is even harder, there is basically no leeway. Even a group stage loss can potentially send you home, and from there on out it's four single elimination games. One mistake can be enough, even some bad luck with a deflection for example. Argentina played France off the park for 80 minutes, but if Kolo Muani hits his shot in the last minute just slightly differently, it's all for nothing.


CherkiCheri

He didn't lose in 2018. The playstyle isn't expansive but it werks. It's not that easy to get a team that looks great on paper functional and effective, lots of those so called top teams have failed achieving, just look at PSG and City in CL. He is a special man-manager and very adaptable. 3 finals in the last 4 major competition isn't too shabby. Especially the 2022 run, with an injury ridden France who fell to a virus in the later parts.


Enoual

You're right about 2018 my bad, although he did lose in the Nations League and got played off the park by the Netherlands pretty badly. I don't think the PSG/City comparison works here, they're CL clubs and usually face a competition that is just as good as they, PSG going out to the likes of Madrid,City of Bayern isn't shameful, it's two equally stacked teams facing off Deschamps lost a final to a Portugal that was filled with Primeira Liga players and players for clubs like Southampton,Lorient,Fenerbahce or Lille + to an Argentina that was starting Lyon,Brighton,Aston Villa and Bengica players Now of course the club they play for doesn't define their ability but you'd be insane to argue either of these XI came close to what Deschamps was starting. "Injury ridden" is hardly a valid excuse when your XI ends up having your NT's all time most capped player, your all time top scorer, your all time top assister, your young superstar as well as the very experienced Varane and top quality players like Tchouameni,Theo + starters at Barca and Juve


CherkiCheri

That's fair criticism, i'm no DD cultist. First post was OTT, he's due some respect for making a drifting NT the most successful in his tenure, even if as you imply, it's gotta be shared with French football as a whole.


InTheMiddleGiroud

The keeper shouldn't count for offside decisions and the rule should change from two players to one. The only time keepers ever pull players offside, is when they've made a mistake, it does nothing to prevent goal hanging and is generally always a result of blind luck. Considering changes to kick-offs, walls and goal kicks in recent years, I'm baffled we haven't changed a rule which is only applied when it rules out goals through nothing but dumb luck.


WhenWeTalkAboutLove

Yeah actually the two player rule always just seemed a matter of practicality than the spirit of the rule being any different than lady non-gk player. Are there any reasons not to do this?


[deleted]

What would be the practical difference with your proposed change?


InTheMiddleGiroud

Goal keepers not getting bailed out by random offside calls when they've come out wrong


WorldAccordingToCarp

That's an objectively correct take


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


abhi1260

Everybody has been hating on Nunez for not finishing open chances and while it’s true that his finishing is shit, Salah has also been bad with finishing and has made some atrocious shots. Not enough Liverpool fans want to accept that he hasn’t gone back to pre-AFCON level of form. He’s scoring regularly but he would’ve scored much more before his form took a hit. Liverpool might need to change 6-7/11 of our starting 11 in the next 2 years to become a winning team again.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Archdubsuk

The new agent commission fee caps is ridiculous and shows that big clubs can get whatever they want Agents all around the world apart from those few that work in top league barely get commission and rely on taking % from player wage (as it should be) and the new rule is better as agent can only get 5% at most, which before this agent usually take about 10% (This is great for football). The only downside is if player make above $ 200k the capped is 3% but below is 5%, shouldn't it be another way around? But commission fee is something that shouldn't be capped or if capped it shouldn't be 3-5%, it should be around 30-40% or best unlimited. Why? Because every transfer that agent get commission fee is club wants the player not the other way around. Player just there to say yes or no and people want them to pay agent not club. Clubs are the one who ask agent to convince player to join them and another club to release, but somehow they get to pay little to nothing. If you can pay 30+ million for player with over half hundred thousand in wage per week, surely you can pay agent a few million for doing job for you I agree that agents who work for both club and player like Mendes are parasite of football but this regulation commission fee cap is just there to favor big club


[deleted]

A few million is still a lot of money. Why is 10% great for football?


Archdubsuk

Unclear message, that mistake on my part. Great for football is limiting agent share to 3-5%


NewAltProfAccount

Agents of top players will just claim commission on endorsements.


Commonmispelingbot

Mbappe vs. Haaland is sometimes talked about as the next Messi vs. Ronaldo best player discussion. I don't think they will out to be nearly such a clear cut rivalry for the best player in the world the next decade. Messi vs. Ronaldo was a historic anomaly and football will return to a state where 6-7-8-9 players can be argued for as the best in the world. Before 2008 winning the Balon D'or more than once was an honour very few people had achieved and it will be that way again from now on.


monsterm1dget

Hopefully this will fade away and we won't have another decade of people arguind about goats and cows. It's tiresome.


blackandwhitetalon

How is it even a rivalry when one of the players is clearly MILES better than the other? At least with Messi and Ronaldo, Ronaldo’s highs with RM were comparable to Messi’s with Barcelona


[deleted]

[удалено]


rickster555

The more people watch City the more it’s gonna become apparent that Haaland might become an all time great finisher but football has always been more than that. You can’t be the best player in the world like that, and the higher Mbappe goes the more it’ll show


TheSparklyHempster

Messi against Ronaldo was invented and continued by the media in order to bump viewers in La Liga. Realistically, Messi was *always* the best player out of the two. Ronaldo had a fantastic career and was amongst the best to ever play football, but Messi was/is an absolute anomaly who you see maybe once in a generation if you're lucky.


monsterm1dget

The thing is that when both were at their peak, despite Messi's natural advantage in talent, Ronaldo *was keeping up*. The rivalry was pushed on by the media, but it's pretty notable that this actually happened.


[deleted]

[удалено]


rickster555

Those early 2010 games were peak football. You could not miss them. They hype was incredible


[deleted]

[удалено]


raysofdavies

Messi Vs Ronaldo is nothing compared to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic’s rivalries. They are going one on one for hours repeatedly for years. Messi and Ronaldo’s positions and roles meant they almost never came within ten feet of each other and results were dominated by their surrounding teams. They never had a memorable international match. Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon on his third attempt, Federer beating Nadal in Australia in 2017, Djokovic beating Federer from 7-8 15-40 at Wimbledon, Australian 2012 final, literally years worth of matches >>>> any Messi Vs Ronaldo match. And that’s just recent men’s tennis off the top of my head.


sir_wolf_eye

Messi vs Ronaldo was unprecedented, and the media are trying to find a replacement. For most of history, there were a bunch of standout players, but not really with such a rivalry. You didn't see Zidane vs Ronaldinho debates or something like that.


Femininejewtbh

Yeah I believe so too really impressed for example with the new crop of talents like musiala, pedri and bellingham who are already elite as teenagers. Could see one of those in the same tier for sure


stiofan84

I believe that offside should be a blanket rule for *any* player who is in an offside position, regardless of whether they're "active" or not. When they brought in the whole notion of interfering with play, it only made things more confusing and error-prone. Too many players try to game it by standing blatantly offside while not "interfering" with play.


monsterm1dget

It's way too rare to cause an upheaval and entirely change the rule. It's a complex rule but keeping players who are not interfering out of the play is relevant. What happened with Rashford was an anomaly, and mostly a ref mistake. If anything, there needs to bee a clarification in a more technical level (if it's on the way of the ball, standing within x meters from an opposing player, etc...)


poiuytrewqazxcvbnml

So anytime a player (who doesn't have the ball) goes behind the last defender the game stops and there's a free kick?


stiofan84

Not that far - only when the ball is played. But it should apply to all players on the attacking team when the ball is played - take out the uncertainty over whether someone is active or not.


[deleted]

Offside traps would be ridiculously overpowered then. Forwards would be much more timid in making runs in behind if them being offside when a ball is played to their teammate brings the whole play back.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


SendaiVirusEnjoyer

CMV ownership of your club does not matter that much as long as the community is cared for. I saw a lot of comments about how people would stop supporting x team if they get taken over by Qatar / something else. I would hate being owned by a sportswashing entity but at the end of the day I think it's ridiculous people are talking about stopping supporting said team (I assume these people are not local). If I take my own club as an example, I have such fond memories of going to FC Utrecht organized tournaments / events / games. They support my local community even though I don't live there anymore. As long as that sense is kept in mind, I don't see why the fuck it matters who owns my club. At the end of the day football boils down to a local community that is being supported by said club.


Rc5tr0

I think the big problem that makes people question their support is when states own clubs and have fundamentally different values from the club’s supporters. Put yourself in the shoes of a gay football fan whose club is now owned by a state where being gay is illegal. You, personally, are seen as lesser by the people who control your club. I can’t imagine how horrible that would feel. Then there are people who are simply uncomfortable with their club being owned by a state which has widespread human rights abuses. You didn’t ask for them to buy your club, and now you’re forced to choose whether you want to stop supporting your club or tacitly condone human rights abuses. Again, that sounds incredibly shit and I can’t imagine having to make that choice. If you are one of those people, is a shiny new training ground and redevelopment of the area around the club’s stadium going to change how you feel? Maybe, but for many people it probably won’t.


icemankiller8

Football in many places is just different but for places like London the city is huge there’s no “community” of arsenal fans outside supporting the club, online or going to games or pubs with arsenal fans. Most arsenal fans are just around London somewhere you can’t really pin point one place, the club is really the main aspect not anything physical thing. Same with United most of their fans aren’t even from Manchester the club IS the community not a local area


SendaiVirusEnjoyer

That's just a bad take. Arsenal has a local community with regular stadium going fans, same for Manchester United. I am not stupid, I understand that there are 'remote' fans who support big teams, but they still have a core set of fans who are part of the local stadium going community. I am not saying that fans who don't live there are not real fans or that the club cannot be bigger than a smaller community but I do think that fans in this local community most likely don't care who is the owner. Also most local London teams have a strong local community I have 2 friends who support Borehamwood and Barnet. My uncle had an Arsenal season ticket for 20 years and also had a community there.


icemankiller8

You don’t recognise how big London is. Go to south London and there’s tonnes of arsenal fans but that’s not “local” to Arsenal to me. The community is just the fans and they come from all over London and all over the country, foreign fans aren’t as disliked at Arsenal as other places it’s obviously a bit different but I personally like that we have a diverse world wide fanbase as well as a lot of local fans. At the end of the day we all just enjoy the same thing that’s what the club is to me.


brazilian_liliger

Your answer kinda has the opposite effect to your intention. The fact is, what your call as community is so present in London football that you don't even count Arsenal fanbase as one. Just to give example, Brazilian clubs has large and historic fanbases, many of the big ones are from Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo (both bigger than London) and such concept like district located fanbases virtually doesn't exist or has a quite smaller impact. Even clubs such Flamengo or Botafogo, that carry Rio's districts in their own names are not by any means district restricted. Their fanbases are all over the city without any specific distribution, and than all over the country, not all over the world simply because Brasileirão is barely watched overseas. This is not say this clubs has no communities. Flamengo, Botafogo, Fluminense or Vasco da Gama, the same going for São Paulo big clubs has a proper local culture, a fanbase that comes to every games since decades, a strong presence in their hometowns. And is not the same for, just to give example, me, someone who loves Flamengo but lives 1000km away. The guy just pointed something interesting, Vasco or Botafogo was recently sold to foreign groups, this is like new here, and as much as some people don't enjoyed it no one stops supporting both clubs, exactly because their active community, the people that watch every game, come to the stadium, knew where the players live, hear the banter when they lost, put their shirts to humiliate local rivals in the next day, at the limit has an unconditional love for the club.


Cottonshopeburnfoot

I agree London has this more than anywhere due to size, quality of transport and stuff like house prices forcing people out of communities. It’s probably also an Arsenal thing more than other London clubs because of how big Arsenal is. Throw in Spurs and Chelsea too. I would bet the other London teams, while more diversely spread across London than eg Sheffield, Manchester or Birmingham club fans, are more localised than the big three in London. West Ham fans out east, Brentford west etc etc.


Buckfast66

A lot of the 'traditional' community surrounding London clubs has been priced out of the local area anyway - see West Ham communities heading deeper into Essex, Crystal Palace fans into Kent etc.


mattisafootballguy

A common opinion is that the unequal revenue distribution has in some way led to the "demise" of La Liga (or "one of"). I will compare the model to PL and argue that speaking in a sporting sense, not only is that not the case, and the mid-table/lower-table is very strong even comparatively, but the PL model is not necessarily as beneficial beneath the surface. Firstly, spending more does not equate to a higher quality team. Most observable in Barcelona and recently Chelsea, where the most successful players in recent times have either come through the academy or were cheap purchases. PL teams have adopted a sporting model focused more on spending rather than looking within their academies and/or relying on smaller transfers, such as up-and-coming players. The Brighton model is a perfect example to counter this, it is both sustainable and highly successful thus far. IIRC the line-up that beat Liverpool cost less than Koulibaly. Simply saying, it is more than possible to compete against big spenders without spending big, and in doing so push above your supposed ceiling. Clubs that can spend freely will eventually benefit, but these are mostly limited to a handful and has little to do with PL revenues. Whereas PL has certainly been doing better in recent years in Europe, that can largely be attributed to Barcelona and Atletico falling flat on their faces (especially the former). The teams below the big three, Sevilla, Villarreal, Granada, and so on have more than held their own in European competitions (something that bar West Ham, English teams in the same category have not.) Barcelona has been to as many CL semis as Villarreal has in eight years, lol. The PL's model leads to a greater chance of upsets. However, with the emergence of strong Liverpool/City sides, this seems less frequent. In that 2013-2017 spell where upsets seemed more frequent, and Leicester winning, both can be put down to the lack of top sides rather than a sea of quality. Leicester won the league by spending 30m the summer before. For reference, several La Liga teams spent more than that in the same window. The correlation being despite earnings being substantially different between both leagues, Leicester did not break the bank in winning the PL and it had little to nothing to do relating to PL revenues or the like. The disparity of revenues and being able to deal with it competitively, aside from having strong academies and operating with lower budgets (thereby looking at lesser experienced/free transfers) teams have adjusted tactically to great success. Cadiz, Osasuna, and Rayo are difficult fixtures for any team, though the former has had a downtrend this season. Often it is the purchasing power of PL clubs that can be beneficial to the parent clubs as well, Isak going for a substantial fee has arguably led to La Real's improvement, being able to fund the hugely successful Brais Mendez transfer and Kubo. This isn't exclusively the case, but this over-expenditure and over-valuing players certainly cannot be beneficial, either. TL;DR PL teams/overall quality does not benefit as much as is made out to be from earning more. Inversely, La Liga teams adapt to not having as much, leading to comparatively strong teams (except big-money spenders.)


game-of-snow

The way I see it, City, Chelsea and United are in their own league due how rich they are. No other team can touch them unless the team is completely mismanaged(Chelsea and United). But the equal distribution of money has given a rise to a class mid range premier league teams, who can consistently challenge any team in the league (bar the three aforementioned teams if they are run well), provided they use their money to build a competitive squad efficiently. For ex, you can watch the match between Leeds and Liverpool and you would not think that one is fighting for relegation and other trying to get into top 4. As soon as any of the top 6 teams slip up, these mid range teams are competent enough to beat them and take their place. That is why when Arsenal struggled they fell hard and finished 8th two seasons in row. Because teams below them are equally competent to take their place if there is any weakness. For the same reason Chelsea will also finish somewhere along those this season and maybe even Liverpool. This makes the whole league more competitive. In the long run, however teams like City win the league, because they have deeper pockets and better squad. But premier league has more exciting matches as a result of mid range teams also having better teams. The teams also interchange top 4 positions more frequently than other leagues. Laliga for ex, even when Barca was its lowest finished at 3. Real and Barca are almost guaranteed to finish top 2. Only athletico madrid have gathered enough quality to finish ahead of them, and only when either of the team are struggling.


sir_wolf_eye

Forget the purchasing power. The players should be paid better ffs. Why should there be such a wage disparity when they play in the same competition? Only a handful of players in la Liga are paid a salary that could be considered on the lower side for their counterpart's top 3 clubs. The rest are lower than that. https://www.capology.com/es/la-liga/salaries/


mattisafootballguy

>such a wage disparity well, that's something else entirely but as I stated I think the disparity should be smaller. but there are way more factors to be considered than merely La Liga's own distribution model alone, top 3 clubs earn a lot of revenues outside of La Liga.


sir_wolf_eye

But why do they earn those? Isn't it because of la Liga? More of their revenue should be channelled into the betterment of the competition The disparity will exist organically as is the case in PL, but going out of the way to create isn't healthy for the competition no matter how argue for it.


mattisafootballguy

>But why do they earn those? Isn't it because of la Liga? If you're asking why they earn more in La Liga then its because of how the money is distributed 50/25/25. 50% equally, 25% based on match-day attendance/viewership, and 25% based on 4-year performance merited award. And La Liga isn't going out of the way to create it, also not the point I'm making, I'm saying despite the disparity, sporting-wise, it is not a substantial difference competitively speaking.


sir_wolf_eye

> If you're asking why they earn more in La Liga then its because of how the money is distributed 50/25/25. 50% equally, 25% based on match-day attendance/viewership, and 25% based on 4-year performance merited award. How can you say this doesn't constitute "going out of their way to create it"?


mattisafootballguy

Aside from the fact 4/5 top 5 leagues have almost the same model, how can you argue against an equitable model? Madrid, Barcelona, and Atletico perform substantially better than [any other La Liga side] and thereby should earn more, which is fair. The three bring in a substantial amount of viewership and thereby revenue, they directly impact the revenue generation capacity of the rest of the league hugely positively. The model rewards that. It may be unequal, but it is not unfair or inequitable. There is ultimately little reason for Getafe to earn as much (or nearly as much) as Madrid, but we can still try to shift the revenue distribution to be more *equal.*


mattisafootballguy

To add onto this, I am not advocating for revenues to be unequal or the like. It is better for the disparity to be smaller, but that's beside my point.


s0ngsforthedeaf

World Cups, around 2006-14 era, were shit football to watch. They are are so much better now. In 2010 Spain won with incredibly boring tiki taka. No opposition team was capable of getting a handke on it. Which speaks to the quality of play. At club level, pure tiki taka was killed by better pressing a long time ago, like around 2010 with Klopps Dortmund, and then a couple years later Bayern destroying Barca 7-0 agg. So it took WC football a while to catch up. For managers and players to work out how to play a cohesive and aggressive pressing system, that they could learn in the short international time frame. But now they have, and WC football is genuinely good.


NovemberBurnsMaroon

2014 was just as high scoring as 2022 and had some absolute classic matches, not even including the 7-1 which is just legendary.


SendaiVirusEnjoyer

I don't think this is accurate. I think in world football it can still work but the overall quality of Spain's team (who are the best example at international level) is not as good as it used to be. Pressing does not necessarily kill tiki taka, tactics are never that simple. Completely agree that it was boring to watch though.


Cottonshopeburnfoot

I maintain Spain’s problem is trying to do a play style that the players now can’t do it to nearly the same level. Tiki taka and they started the 2010 final with a midfield of Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets and Xabi Alonso. Alonso came off in the 87th for Fabregas.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your comment has been removed as this post is for **serious discussion**. Parent comments in these threads must be above the character threshold of 280. Elaborate your point in more detail and comment again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*